in reply to Some advice on another's scripts

I would agree that those who posts code online are subject to peer review. This standard also applies to writers of critiques. I'm wondering how I would feel if I read a review of a book and the reviewer admitted to just skimming it and not being an expert on the subject at hand.

Parroting "use strict" and "-w" without backing it up is not a valuable critique. How would CGI.pm fare under that standard? TMTOWTDI. If you are going to attack someone else's work, take the time to show the specific reasons behind your comments.

Did you do the right thing by bringing your concerns to the attention of the author? By all means. Did you do the right thing by turning your concerns into an cursory unsolicited public critique of someone else's code? I'm not so sure. 

()-()
 \"/
  `

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Some advice on another's scripts
by Mr. Muskrat (Canon) on Jun 26, 2002 at 00:02 UTC
    ignatz,
    I couldn't show specifics without exposing the code which may have exposed who the author was. I was trying to make it an anonymous post. I did not give the url or so much as the name of the script until I told to post the url to peterbrown's write up on his programming practices. This post started as a question. That question was answered. I updated the info as it was made available to me.
[reply]

In Section Meditations